Honestly, I find it mind-boggling that some people can play NBA2K and NBA LIVE making it seem like there's a possibility of comparison. Not on this message board, but in some corners of the internet. I migrated from Live to 2K in 2004 (Ben Wallace on the cover) and never looked back. I tried to play Live in 08 on PSP, but man, it was horrible. It looks hilarious when in motion. It might just be that, but unfortunately I can't try the latest because I use my PC for gaming. Nevertheless, in terms of reviews, the general consensus (and not just this year, but every single year it has been competing with 2K -- probably even before, but I never checked reviews then) is: MEDIOCRE AT BEST with a few "It's alright" which I think are just pity points and hopefuls (including me) for some real competition. I like options. I mean, a four year hiatus ... a 43 for 14, 59 for 15 and a 59 for 16 on Metacritic. And yeah, it still looks funny in motion almost all the time when watching others play. While 2K's is 85, 83 and 87 ... and I actually think there's a few problems with AI and the simulation front that popped up post-2014 it seems.

They even got a 2K developer to help them out a few years ago. Difficult not to commend the 2K series without citing the only "competitor". This isn't like Madden versus NFL2K5 here when the former decided to monopolize the license. I personally think 2K's was better in terms of simulation. I'm not a big fan of monopolies, but if there is a way 2K can bank on this complete domination of the only competitor, they should utilize all the different channels/outlets for their presentation (ie. ESPN, TSN) and make it feel even more like the real NBA. I don't know how fair that would be for up and comers (I think it should always be encouraged), but until a legitimate one is in the horizon, I think basketball video game fans deserve that kind of experience. Can you imagine the amount of audio they can reincorporate into the game? Just grab it straight from the hundreds of yearly games and even the archives.

I was thinking of posting this on the Nba Live 16 page, but I would be viewed as a hater and would probably get banned. I am genuinely curious for actual players of the NBA2K series what they think of Live as a competition. In what ways is it better? Is it a different experience? If so, how?

P.S.I have this odd thought that some of 2K's developers are forced to work on these two games.

deodorantthief1 wrote:I was thinking of posting this on the Nba Live 16 page, but I would be viewed as a hater and would probably get banned.

You would not.

I personally like playing something different sometimes. It doesn't matter if it's realistic or not. Have you ever heard about the basketball games made from Idoru? They suck, "technically speaking". But I like what I got to play, because arenas were very cool and totally different than what I am accustomed to in a basketball game, players and teams were generic (which is also uncommon), there were like 300 teams, and so forth. Of course those games are clunky as hell, but sometimes we just need some fresh breeze.

Despite their unmatched superiority today, NBA 2K games get boring really fast in my opinion. It's something about the style, or the "pedigree", whatever. Historically, I feel like Live games are more "mechanical", whereas 2K are more, hmm, "swagy" maybe. 2K games are Jason Williams, Live games are Mark Price. Of course, nowadays it's more like 2K is Steph Curry and Live is Dellavedova, but I think you get it. It's hard to explain, but what I want to say is that some players like fancy stuff like elaborated, very realistic animations, even to the detriment of factors such as pace and control, while others prefer simple, straightforward anims that don't look as realistic, but promote a faster pace and more control by the user. For example, I keep going back to the Live 2005/06 very frequently because I find the simple gameplay very refreshing.

Unfortunately I don't have a console, so I didn't get to play the last iterations of NBA Live. But I imagine some people feel like me.

I played a lot of Live the last time it came out and I really enjoyed just playing basketball without dealing with constant updates to battle on-line cheaters, the updates also becoming part of solo, career play. Yeah, Live had it faults but at least I controlled my player, not getting sucked into animations I couldn't get out of, etc.

I am really hoping Live takes big steps with the new release cuz I really find 2k is a game where I have little control over anything in career, the developers are controlling how me and my player can play.

Having created 4 different players (SF, PG, SG, C), with 4 different teams, and seeing the season play out pretty much the same for all 4, that kind of proves to me I don't really have any control on the game, the script does. So what's the point?

Last edited by StyxTx on Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yeah, the game modes look promising. I'm interested in trying them out myself.

IGN actually gave NBA Live 10 an 8.2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OgU4v0UfEo) and it's in the 80's on Metacritic. That looks really good. I didn't watch it because it was old. Why does 14 look so different? It doesn't even look like the same engine.

This thread probably could've gone in either section - I'll leave it here for the moment - but either way, it's not going to get you banned. If posting a thread criticising NBA Live was going to result in a ban, it wouldn't matter where you posted it, but of course, it's not against the rules. Even before we expanded beyond being just an NBA Live fansite, criticising NBA Live was not against the rules. Now, if someone was to insist on spamming an opinion throughout the Forum, being nasty to people who held opposing views, derailing topics while being a broken record in the process, and making posts in Wishlist threads and other feedback areas that are in no way constructive, then that would be an issue. However, the issue there would be with how they're expressing their opinions, using the facilities, and treating their fellow members, rather than the opinion itself. Again, that's not an issue here, so no worries.

Also, 2K developers definitely do not work on NBA Live, voluntarily or otherwise. Mike Wang did briefly leave Visual Concepts for EA Sports and worked on both NBA Live 09 and NBA Live 10, but returned to Visual Concepts when the direction changed for NBA Elite 11. Neither he nor anyone else has worked on NBA Live while also working on NBA 2K. More recently, Scott O'Gallagher came to be employed by EA after being part of an NBA Live community initiative, then moved on to Visual Concepts some time in 2014.

One last thing to confirm, NBA Live 14 does indeed run on a different engine to NBA Live 10, though some assets have obviously been reused from earlier games. NBA Elite 11 was also starting over and going in a new direction. It's been one of the things that has set NBA Live back: changing directions and starting over so many times.

With that out of the way, let's get to NBA Live as an alternative and competitor.

There was a time when NBA Live was the leading brand - in sales, and in quality - when it came to basketball sims. The series is yet to reach the heights of realism that certain NBA 2K games have achieved, but there are games in the NBA Live series that were, in their day, very good and even great basketball games. Some of them have an impressive amount of realism, given the level of tech at the time. Others certainly fell short of expectations, and tried things that didn't pan out. However, it was consistently the best all-around NBA game through the 90s and turn of the millennium, and it's fair to say that up until NBA Live 06 and NBA 2K6 on the PlayStation 2 (which was also the version that EA ported to the PC), things were fairly competitive. Both games had things they did better than the other, and oddly enough given what's happened in the following generations, I'd say at the time, NBA Live's animations were actually better.

From a critical aspect, both from professional reviewers and gamers alike, NBA Live both held its own and was in some ways superior through to the 2006 season; at least the PS2/PC version. It continued to sell more copies than 2K for a couple more iterations after that, with NBA 2K9 being the first game to best NBA Live in sales as well as reception. NBA Live had started from scratch when they made the leap to the Xbox 360 with NBA Live 06, which was bare-bones compared to the PC/PS2 version and had a few other problems. From there, as I said earlier, NBA Live has changed direction and started from scratch a few too many times, which has set it back.

In terms of NBA Live doing things better than NBA 2K, there were more examples when the games were more comparable in quality, but there are a few things that tend to stand out. The approach to dribbling controls is a common one; it's certainly the reason it took me a while to get into the NBA 2K series, having such a long history with NBA Live. NBA Live 16 uses two different in-game currencies for player upgrades and player gear, neither of which are connected to microtransactions; that's a really good, user-friendly idea. BIG Moments and Dynamic Season are innovative concepts. EA's partnership with Synergy Sports was a revolutionary concept for player ratings and performance. Back in the day, All-Star Weekend was fantastic.

NBA Live has made some mistakes which have set it back, but amid a mixture of troubled and promising releases, there have been some really good features and concepts that have a lot of potential, which some gamers definitely prefer to approaches taken by 2K. There's nostalgia for a time when the brand was a lot stronger, the games much better. There's a desire to see the potential of those good ideas realised, so that there can be two games on the market. It would give gamers two viable choices, and if both EA and 2K are doing good things, they can keep each other in check. Without serious competition, 2K has done some things in recent years that don't necessarily create a lot of goodwill with us basketball gamers.

If you're a younger gamer who didn't grow up with NBA Live and experience it when the series was in much better shape, you probably only know it as the series that's had cancelled games, and titles that haven't lived up to expectations. In that case, your view is going to be different from an older gamer who does have some fond memories of better times for the NBA Live series, and feels that competition is good for the genre. Of course, I think that even if you're happy with 2K and don't want to have anything to do with Live, you should probably still want Live to do well. Again, it would keep 2K honest in some of the design choices they've made (ie. ones related to microtransactions), and competition would drive both products to be better. We can all ultimately vote with our wallets, and buy the brand that satisfies us the most. Or, if both games are good, invest in them both, for the differing experiences they provide in their modes and whatnot. For all of us, that choice is at our discretion.

When you consider some of the threads here expressing dissatisfaction and exasperation with NBA 2K, and the legacy issues that are still present in NBA 2K17, there's definitely room for another game on the market...maybe more, if other developers can throw their hat into the ring at some point. As much as I've become a fan of NBA 2K and have had a lot of fun with the games, I still want to see NBA Live succeed; not just for nostalgic reasons, but there are things I like better in NBA Live, and again, I firmly believe having competition will benefit the basketball gaming community in the long run. Here's hoping both EA and 2K can deliver in the future.

This thread probably could've gone in either section - I'll leave it here for the moment - but either way, it's not going to get you banned. If posting a thread criticising NBA Live was going to result in a ban, it wouldn't matter where you posted it, but of course, it's not against the rules. Even before we expanded beyond being just an NBA Live fansite, criticising NBA Live was not against the rules. Now, if someone was to insist on spamming an opinion throughout the Forum, being nasty to people who held opposing views, derailing topics while being a broken record in the process, and making posts in Wishlist threads and other feedback areas that are in no way constructive, then that would be an issue. However, the issue there would be with how they're expressing their opinions, using the facilities, and treating their fellow members, rather than the opinion itself. Again, that's not an issue here, so no worries.

Also, 2K developers definitely do not work on NBA Live, voluntarily or otherwise. Mike Wang did briefly leave Visual Concepts for EA Sports and worked on both NBA Live 09 and NBA Live 10, but returned to Visual Concepts when the direction changed for NBA Elite 11. Neither he nor anyone else has worked on NBA Live while also working on NBA 2K. More recently, Scott O'Gallagher came to be employed by EA after being part of an NBA Live community initiative, then moved on to Visual Concepts some time in 2014.

One last thing to confirm, NBA Live 14 does indeed run on a different engine to NBA Live 10, though some assets have obviously been reused from earlier games. NBA Elite 11 was also starting over and going in a new direction. It's been one of the things that has set NBA Live back: changing directions and starting over so many times.

With that out of the way, let's get to NBA Live as an alternative and competitor.

There was a time when NBA Live was the leading brand - in sales, and in quality - when it came to basketball sims. The series is yet to reach the heights of realism that certain NBA 2K games have achieved, but there are games in the NBA Live series that were, in their day, very good and even great basketball games. Some of them have an impressive amount of realism, given the level of tech at the time. Others certainly fell short of expectations, and tried things that didn't pan out. However, it was consistently the best all-around NBA game through the 90s and turn of the millennium, and it's fair to say that up until NBA Live 06 and NBA 2K6 on the PlayStation 2 (which was also the version that EA ported to the PC), things were fairly competitive. Both games had things they did better than the other, and oddly enough given what's happened in the following generations, I'd say at the time, NBA Live's animations were actually better.

From a critical aspect, both from professional reviewers and gamers alike, NBA Live both held its own and was in some ways superior through to the 2006 season; at least the PS2/PC version. It continued to sell more copies than 2K for a couple more iterations after that, with NBA 2K9 being the first game to best NBA Live in sales as well as reception. NBA Live had started from scratch when they made the leap to the Xbox 360 with NBA Live 06, which was bare-bones compared to the PC/PS2 version and had a few other problems. From there, as I said earlier, NBA Live has changed direction and started from scratch a few too many times, which has set it back.

In terms of NBA Live doing things better than NBA 2K, there were more examples when the games were more comparable in quality, but there are a few things that tend to stand out. The approach to dribbling controls is a common one; it's certainly the reason it took me a while to get into the NBA 2K series, having such a long history with NBA Live. NBA Live 16 uses two different in-game currencies for player upgrades and player gear, neither of which are connected to microtransactions; that's a really good, user-friendly idea. BIG Moments and Dynamic Season are innovative concepts. EA's partnership with Synergy Sports was a revolutionary concept for player ratings and performance. Back in the day, All-Star Weekend was fantastic.

NBA Live has made some mistakes which have set it back, but amid a mixture of troubled and promising releases, there have been some really good features and concepts that have a lot of potential, which some gamers definitely prefer to approaches taken by 2K. There's nostalgia for a time when the brand was a lot stronger, the games much better. There's a desire to see the potential of those good ideas realised, so that there can be two games on the market. It would give gamers two viable choices, and if both EA and 2K are doing good things, they can keep each other in check. Without serious competition, 2K has done some things in recent years that don't necessarily create a lot of goodwill with us basketball gamers.

If you're a younger gamer who didn't grow up with NBA Live and experience it when the series was in much better shape, you probably only know it as the series that's had cancelled games, and titles that haven't lived up to expectations. In that case, your view is going to be different from an older gamer who does have some fond memories of better times for the NBA Live series, and feels that competition is good for the genre. Of course, I think that even if you're happy with 2K and don't want to have anything to do with Live, you should probably still want Live to do well. Again, it would keep 2K honest in some of the design choices they've made (ie. ones related to microtransactions), and competition would drive both products to be better. We can all ultimately vote with our wallets, and buy the brand that satisfies us the most. Or, if both games are good, invest in them both, for the differing experiences they provide in their modes and whatnot. For all of us, that choice is at our discretion.

When you consider some of the threads here expressing dissatisfaction and exasperation with NBA 2K, and the legacy issues that are still present in NBA 2K17, there's definitely room for another game on the market...maybe more, if other developers can throw their hat into the ring at some point. As much as I've become a fan of NBA 2K and have had a lot of fun with the games, I still want to see NBA Live succeed; not just for nostalgic reasons, but there are things I like better in NBA Live, and again, I firmly believe having competition will benefit the basketball gaming community in the long run. Here's hoping both EA and 2K can deliver in the future.

You're right about competition. It's been proven time and time again, in every walk of life, that if you're a monopoly you get lazy and the product tends to fall off. 2k's attitude, most likely, is, so what if you have problems with the game. Who else are you going to if you want to play basketball, and they are correct. However, I feel this is an abuse of the customer base, you can see how they really operate and their opinion of the customers who put the money in their pockets. That is the attitude that has me hoping beyond hope that some competition will spring up. Turnabout is fair play.